[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                           J. Gould
Internet-Draft                                            VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       M. Casanova
Expires: September 27, 2019                                       SWITCH
                                                          March 26, 2019


      Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
          draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01

Abstract

   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
   includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
   to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
   during a session.  The services are identified using namespace URIs.
   How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
   in the response when the client does not support the required service
   namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace?  An
   unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC
   5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server
   prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs
   to be capable of processing all poll messages.  This document defines
   an operational practice that enables the server to return information
   associated with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the
   negotiated services defined in RFC 5730.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2019.








Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Unhandled Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data  . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Unhandled Object-Level Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Unhandled Command-Response Extension  . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Usage with General EPP Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Verisign EPP SDK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process  . . . . . .  16
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.1.  Change from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
   includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
   to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
   during a session.  The services are identified using namespace URIs.
   How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
   in the response when the client does not support the required service
   namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace?  An
   unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
   [RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
   server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client
   needs to be capable of processing all poll messages.  An unhandled



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server
   has information that it cannot return to the client due to the
   client's supported services.  The server should be able to return
   unhandled namespace information that the client can process later.
   This document defines an operational practice that enables the server
   to return information associated with unhandled namespace URIs that
   is compliant with the negotiated services defined in [RFC5730].

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   XML is case sensitive.  Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
   and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
   character case presented in order to develop a conforming
   implementation.

   In examples, "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server.
   Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to
   illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of
   this protocol.

   The examples reference XML namespace prefixes that are used for the
   associated XML namespaces.  Implementations MUST NOT depend on the
   example XML namespaces and instead employ a proper namespace-aware
   XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
   The example namespace prefixes used and their associated XML
   namespaces include:

   "changePoll":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
   "domain":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
   "secDNS":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1

   In the template example XML, placeholder content is represented by
   the following variables:

   "[NAMESPACE-XML]":  XML content associated with a login service
       namespace URI.  An example is the <domain:infData> element
       content in [RFC5731].
   "[NAMESPACE-URI]":  XML namespace URI associated with the [NAMESPACE-
       XML] XML content.  An example is "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-
       1.0" in [RFC5731].







Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


2.  Unhandled Namespaces

   An Unhandled Namespace is an XML namespace that is associated with a
   response extension that is not included in the client-specified EPP
   login services of [RFC5730].  The EPP login services consists of the
   set of XML namespace URIs included in the <objURI> or <extURI>
   elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <login> command.  The services
   supported by the server are included in the <objURI> and <extURI>
   elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset
   of the login services included in the EPP <login> command.  A server
   may have information associated with a specific namespace that it
   needs to return in the response to a client.  The unhandled
   namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it
   needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client
   based on the negotiated EPP <login> command services.

3.  Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data

   When a server has data to return to the client, that the client does
   not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a
   successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace
   moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element.  The unhandled namespace
   will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data
   will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason
   why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the
   appropriate location of the response.  The <extValue> element XML
   will not be processed by the XML processor.  The <extValue> element
   contains the following child elements:

   <value>:  Contains a child-element with the unhandled namespace XML.
       The XML namespace and namespace prefix of the child element MUST
       be defined, which MAY be defined in the <value> element or in the
       the child element.  XML processing of the <value> element is
       disabled in [RFC5730], so the information can safely be returned
       in the <value> element.
   <reason>:  A formatted human-readable message that indicates the
       reason the unhandled namespace data was not returned in the
       appropriate location of the response.  The formatted reason
       SHOULD follow the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) grammar
       [RFC5234] format: NAMESPACE-URI "not in login services", where
       NAMESPACE-URI is the unhandled XML namespace like
       "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" for [RFC5731].

   This document supports handling of unsupported namespaces for
   [RFC3735] object-level extensions and command-response extensions.
   This document does not support [RFC3735] protocol-level extensions or
   authentication information extensions.  Refer to the following




Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   sections on how to handle an unsupported object-level extension
   namespace or an unsupported command-response extension namespace.

3.1.  Unhandled Object-Level Extension

   An object-level extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
   <resData> element.  If the client does not handle the namespace of
   the object-level extension, then the <resData> element is removed and
   its object-level extension child element is moved into a [RFC5730]
   <extValue> <value> element, with the namespace URI included in the
   corresponding <extValue> <reason> element.  The response becomes a
   general EPP response without the <resData> element.

   Template response for a supported object-level extension.  The
   [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level extension XML.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      [NAMESPACE-XML]
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>




















Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported object-level
   extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level
   extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable represents the object-
   level extension XML namespace URI.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          [NAMESPACE-XML]
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:          [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

   The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general
   EPP response by the server when the client does not support the
   object-level extension namespace URI.  Below is example of converting
   the <transfer> query response example in [RFC5730] to an unhandled
   namespace response.




















Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   [RFC5730] example <transfer> query response converted into an
   unhandled namespace response.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          <domain:trnData
   S:            xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:            <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   S:            <domain:trStatus>pending</domain:trStatus>
   S:            <domain:reID>ClientX</domain:reID>
   S:            <domain:reDate>2000-06-06T22:00:00.0Z</domain:reDate>
   S:            <domain:acID>ClientY</domain:acID>
   S:            <domain:acDate>2000-06-11T22:00:00.0Z</domain:acDate>
   S:            <domain:exDate>2002-09-08T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
   S:          </domain:trnData>
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

3.2.  Unhandled Command-Response Extension

   A command-response extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
   <extension> element.  If the client does not handle the namespace of
   the command-response extension, the command-response child element is
   moved into a [RFC5730] <extValue> <value> element, with the namespace
   URI included in the corresponding <extValue> <reason> element.  If
   after moving the command-response child element there are no
   additional command-response child elements, the <extension> element
   MUST be removed.








Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   Template response for a supported command-response extension.  The
   [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the command-response extension
   XML.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <extension>
   S:      [NAMESPACE-XML]
   S:    </extension>
   S:    <trID>
   S:     <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

   Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported command-
   response extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the
   command-response extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable
   represents the command-response extension XML namespace URI.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:         [NAMESPACE-XML]
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:          [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

   The EPP response is converted to an unhandled namespace response by
   moving the unhandled command-response extension from under the



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   <extension> to an <extValue> element.  Below is example of converting
   the DS Data Interface <info> response example in [RFC5910] to an
   unhandled namespace response.

   [RFC5910] DS Data Interface <info> response converted into an
   unhandled namespace response.

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:        <secDNS:infData
   S:          xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1">
   S:          <secDNS:dsData>
   S:          <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
   S:          <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
   S:          <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
   S:          <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
   S:          </secDNS:dsData>
   S:          </secDNS:infData>
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      <domain:infData
   S:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
   S:        <domain:status s="ok"/>
   S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
   S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:ns>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns2.example.com</domain:hostObj>
   S:        </domain:ns>
   S:        <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:        <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
   S:        <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   S:        <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
   S:        <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
   S:        <domain:authInfo>
   S:          <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
   S:        </domain:authInfo>
   S:      </domain:infData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

4.  Usage with General EPP Responses

   The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
   a general EPP response to an EPP command.  A general EPP response
   includes any non-poll message EPP response.  The use of the unhandled
   namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
   Section 5.  The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
   information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
   unhandled namespace approach.

   The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
   only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
   Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
   command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
   in the login services.  An object-level EPP response extension is
   returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
   command extension.  The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
   extension to the client as defined in Section 3.1.

   Returning domain name Redemption Grace Period (RGP) data, based on
   [RFC3915], provides an example of applying the unhandled namespace
   approach for a general EPP response.  If the client does not include
   the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0" namespace URI in the login
   services, and the domain <info> response of a domain name does have
   RGP information, the server MAY exclude the <rgp:infData> element
   from the EPP response or MAY include it under in the <extValue>
   element per Section 3.2.

   [RFC5731] domain name <info> response with the unhandled [RFC3915]
   <rgp:infData> element included under an <extValue> element:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0">
   S:            <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
   S:          </rgp:infData>
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      <domain:infData
   S:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
   S:        <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
   S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
   S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:ns>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
   S:        </domain:ns>
   S:        <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:        <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
   S:        <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
   S:        <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
   S:        <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
   S:        <domain:authInfo>
   S:          <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
   S:        </domain:authInfo>
   S:      </domain:infData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>




Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


5.  Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses

   The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
   if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
   message response.  The server inserts poll messages into the client's
   poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
   services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
   response extensions included in a client's poll queue.  In [RFC5730],
   the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
   poll messages that have been inserted by the server.  The <poll>
   message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
   that provides poll queue meta-data about the message.  The unhandled
   namespace approach, defined in Section 3, is used for an unhandled
   object-level extension and for each of the unhandled command-response
   extensions attached to the <poll> message response.  The resulting
   EPP <poll> message response MAY have either or both the object-level
   extension or command-response extensions moved to <extValue>
   elements, as defined in Section 3.

   The Change Poll Message, as defined in [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll],
   which is an extension of any EPP object, is an example of applying
   the unhandled namespace approach for EPP <poll> message responses.
   The object that will be used in the examples is a [RFC5731] domain
   name object.

   [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response with the
   unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
   element included under an <extValue> element:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1301">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          <changePoll:changeData
   S:          xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
   S:            state="after">
   S:            <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
   S:            <changePoll:date>
   S:              2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
   S:            <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
   S:            <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
   S:            <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
   S:            </changePoll:caseId>
   S:            <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
   S:          </changePoll:changeData>



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <msgQ
   S:      count="15"
   S:      id="1"
   S:    >
   S:      <qDate>2018-08-24T19:21:51.087Z</qDate>
   S:      <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
   S:    </msgQ>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      <domain:infData
   S:        xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:        <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
   S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
   S:        <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
   S:        <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
   S:        <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
   S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
   S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:        <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
   S:        <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
   S:        <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
   S:      </domain:infData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

   Unhandled [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response and
   the unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
   element included under an <extValue> element:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1301">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          <domain:infData
   S:            xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:            <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
   S:            <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
   S:            <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
   S:            <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
   S:            <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
   S:            <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
   S:            <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:            <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:            <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:            <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:            <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
   S:            <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
   S:            <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
   S:            <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
   S:          </domain:infData>
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:        urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:      <extValue>
   S:        <value>
   S:          <changePoll:changeData
   S:          xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
   S:            state="after">
   S:            <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
   S:            <changePoll:date>
   S:              2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
   S:            <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
   S:            <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
   S:            <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
   S:            </changePoll:caseId>
   S:            <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
   S:          </changePoll:changeData>
   S:        </value>
   S:        <reason>
   S:      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
   S:        </reason>
   S:      </extValue>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <msgQ
   S:      count="15"
   S:      id="1"
   S:    >



Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   S:      <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>
   S:      <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
   S:    </msgQ>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

6.  Implementation Status

   Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
   RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
   [RFC7942].  The description of implementations in this section is
   intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
   presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not
   intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
   implementations or their features.  Readers are advised to note that
   other implementations may exist.

   According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
   working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
   benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
   more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to use this
   information as they see fit".

6.1.  Verisign EPP SDK

   Organization: Verisign Inc.

   Name: Verisign EPP SDK

   Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
   unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.

   Level of maturity: Development

   Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.




Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License

   Contact: jgould@verisign.com

   URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
   registry-products/epp-sdks

6.2.  SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process

   Organization: SWITCH

   Name: Registry of .CH and .LI

   Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
   DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records.  These poll
   messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
   1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
   rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.

   Level of maturity: Operational

   Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.

   Licensing: Proprietary

   Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch

   URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds

7.  Security Considerations

   The document do not provide any security services beyond those
   described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP.  The
   security considerations described in these other specifications apply
   to this specification as well.

8.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

9.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]
              Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
              Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-
              regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.





Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3735]  Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.

   [RFC3915]  Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
              the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

   [RFC5731]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.

   [RFC5910]  Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
              Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

Appendix A.  Change History

A.1.  Change from 00 to 01

   1.  Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
       reference from examples.
   2.  removed <extension></extension> block from example.




Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 changePoll                     March 2019


   3.  added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
       Implementation Status

Authors' Addresses

   James Gould
   VeriSign, Inc.
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA  20190
   US

   Email: jgould@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisigninc.com


   Martin Casanova
   SWITCH
   P.O. Box
   Zurich, ZH  8021
   CH

   Email: martin.casanova@switch.ch
   URI:   http://www.switch.ch




























Gould & Casanova       Expires September 27, 2019              [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/